'We Have To Balance Environment With Development': Supreme Court Grants Permission For Felling Of 95 Trees In Mumbai For Construction Of Tunnel

Today, the Supreme Court observed that the protection of environment is important but at the same time the necessity for developmental activities cannot be ignored.

The Court granted permission for felling of the 95 trees in the Film City area at Mumbai for the digging of tunnel from Goregaon.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had passed an interim Order prohibiting the Tree Authority of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation from granting permission to fell trees in Mumbai's Aarey Colony without the leave of the Supreme Court.

The Court was hearing a suo moto petition along with other connected matters regarding denotification of forest land and cutting of trees in the Aarey colony of Mumbai.

The Bench comprising of Chief Justice B. R Gavai And Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, “No doubt the protection of environment is important...but at the same time the necessity for developmental activities cannot be ignored. If the country has to progress the development of infrastructure is also necessary. Unless a proper infrastructure is put in place a country cannot progress...while permitting such a development a caution is to be taken that least damage is caused to the environment."

At the outset, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Project proponent, submitted that permission is required for the cutting of trees in the film city area in Goregaon.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayan, appearing for the Petitioner in one of the connected matters, submitted that the main matter should be heard than the said interim application.

However, the CJ remarked, "At the same time the development can't stop..."

Rohatgi submitted that the the interim application was regarding building of underground tunnel from Goregaon towards Mulund, in order to reduce the travel time. He highlighted a previous order of the Apex Court where in it was directed by the Court that the Tree Authority would not grant permission for felling of trees within the Aarey area without the leave of the Court. He also pointed that the Tree Authority has granted permission for felling of 95 trees.

Sankarnarayan, however, objected that the Tree Authority, being a neutral authority, the engineer of the Tree Authority cannot sworn affidavits in such cases.

Rohatgi submitted that there is tunnel boring machine (TBM), which is as high as four story building, has to go down in order to construct the tunnel. However, the surface from which the TBM would go down is a shaft area having 95 trees.

"Tree Authority has granted the permission", Rohatgi informed the Court.

The CJ asked, "where is the that permission?"

While referring to the permission, Rohatgi continued the submit, "Originally, the proposal was...for permission to remove 1000 trees...but now, we have restricted to the shaft area."

Further, Rohtagi informed the Court that the total trees are 1094, however, today they were only requesting for 95 trees in the shaft area for the first phase of the project.

The CJ inquired about the status of compensatory afforestation that requires to be done in case of cutting of trees. Rohatgi assured that there would be a proper plan regarding the same.

Sankarnarayan, however, submitted that it is a statutory requirement that the plan for compulsory afforestation has to be put first.

While Sankarnarayan was arguing that such applications come every three months, the CJ remarked, "We also have concern for environment...you see...the person can come from airport to Bombay within 35 minutes, earlier it used to take one and half hour...we have always advocated that the environment has to be protected but at the sustainable development also has to be followed."

Further, the CJ asked Rohatgi if any study has been made on this by the experts. Rohatgi informed the Court that if he would ask IIT Bombay and put it on record.

The CJ assured that there would be no tree feeling without the order of the Supreme Court.

Sankarnarayan tried to pursue the Court regarding the environmental issue of tree felling, however, the CJ said, "We also have to take into consideration the concerns of the millions of citizens residing in the city.

Upon which, Sankarnarayan continued to submit that there is enough material on record to show what is Aarey forest. He continued, "The project proponent moved to Tree Authority on 4th March, 2024...on 20th December, 2024...this Court specifically directed the State of Maharashtra... to state whether there is any proposal of felling of trees in Aarey colony...the State of Maharashtra filed an affidavit...that there is no tree cutting proposal of MMRCL felling of trees pending at with the Tree Authority..."

Rohtagi clarified that the area in concern is not part of the Aarey colony, but in film city while pointing out to the map of the area.

The Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra clarified that the affidavit filed by the State of Maharashtra was specifically with regard to to Mumbai Metro Corporation.

"We will grant them permission to fell trees only when if we are satisfied... and the proper measures are being taken...we are clear on that the environment has to be protected but at the same time sustainable development also has to be permitted", the CJ said.

Sankarnarayan urged that the compensatory afforestation plan has to be done in advance and not after the tree felling.

Rohatgi, again emphasised that the project in question is not part of the Aarey area.

While recording the order the CJ remarked that he is aware of the ground reality of Mumbai.

Accordingly, the Court granted permission for the felling of the 95 trees in first phase for the construction of tunnel to reduce travel time within the city.

"No doubt the protection of environment is important...but at the same time the necessity for developmental activities cannot be ignored. If the country has to progress the development of infrastructure is also necessary. Unless a proper infrastructure is put in place a country cannot progress...while permitting such a development a caution is to be taken that least damage is caused to the environment", the Court recorded in its order.

The Court continued to record, "It is always been insisted that the number of trees planted has to be in multiples of the trees fell."

The apex court directed the project proponent to place on record the report of the experts which showed that no other alternative plan was available than the feeling of such 95 trees.

"We have to balance the environment with the Development", remarked the CJ.

The Court assured that they will not pass any order of feeling of trees unless there is a compensatory afforestation.

Case Background

The Tree Authority is a statutory body constituted under the Tree Authority Act, 1996 for regulating the felling of trees and to provide for planting of adequate number of new trees. In December 2024, the Court had directed the Maharashtra government to state whether there was any proposal to fell more trees in the Aarey colony.

The felling of trees in the Aarey colony has been opposed by environmental activists. In November 2022, the Court noted that 2,144 trees were felled in executing the work pertaining to car depot, while 212 trees were felled in connection with the work of the ramp connecting to the metro shed.

In April 2023, the Supreme Court had imposed a fine of ₹10 lakh on MMRCL for seeking to cut trees in excess of 84 trees, in violation of the Court's Judgment. "If circumstances had transpired which led to a variation in the number of trees to be cut, the only correct course of action would have been to move this Court" the Court said. It, however, allowed the MMRCL to remove 177 trees from the Aarey forest to construct the metro shed, which the Tree Authority had earlier approved.

Cause Title: In Re Felling Of Trees In Aarey Forest (Maharashtra) [SMW(C) No. 2/2019]

Click here to read/download Order